Slashdot Mirror
Kazaa And Exportation of U.S. Copyright Laws
Mr. Vidster writes "Interesting article in the NYTimes about the potential issues the U.S. justice system must face when dealing with Sharman Networks and KaZaA. Apparently Sharman and KaZaA have servers in Denmark, source code in Estonia, and the developers live in the Netherlands. How far does the long arm of US copyright law reach?"
Jon Johansen can answer that question for you, and he is only a teengager.
Dr. Joseph Hairston
Superintendent, CCBC
This will all take some time. Laws concerning information on the internet varies widely between nations, even preventing the United States from prosecuting or suing harmful virus writers in SouthEast Asia. With enough money and promises however, the United States may very well talk nations like Denmark and Thailand into more restrictive and reasonable laws concerning their cyber-space.
That is a sensitive problem. On one hand, as an American I really want to shake the "world's bully" image we seem to fitting into, yet on the other hand I dont' see the problem with terminating access to outside Kazaa servers, then cracking down on the local ones. You may not be able to punish the guy running the foreign server, but you can limit access to it from within our borders, thereby removing it as an offender. That way, the government has accomplised it's goal(music/software no longer traded through that route) without having to flex nuts at the foreign government in question.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
The real reason we are going to war with Iraq is because Saddam downloaded Episode II off Kazaa.
... stops at the doorsteps of the US elite.
Look a monkey!
Is Sharman Networks oblidged to even show up to court in this country? If they refuse to even acknowledge a lawsuit or an injunction, does this mean that federal agents will be dispatched to Vanadu, Estonia, the Netherlands, and Australia? I think not.
If they say you're infringing copyright, Sharman, just ignore them.
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.
Most of the countries in the world will accept our food and our military power, but none will be bought to change their laws. We can feed and protect a country till the end of time, but once we're paying them to punish their people to our wishes, we own them, and not a country on earth would allow that.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Here, read the
Berne Convention.
''...And according to a lawyer for the record industry, the programmers in Estonia who once possessed a copy of the program's source code told a judge there last week that they no longer had it, but they would not say where it was.''
Your honour, we looked down the back of the sofa. We think maybe the dog ate it.
The juristictional obstructions to the enforcement of the various entities involved in KaZaa, and others should provide a real sanity check for some of the more draconian copyright enforcement laws currently being enforced by the US at the behest of the RIAA.
Some copyright laws are respected internaltionally, more or less. By this I mean that if a CD pirate is burning copies of commercial CDs and distributing them, the US will ask and work with the sovereign state in which the pirates are operating. The fact that the sovereign state cooperates with the US demonstrates that there is a mutual respect for the given rule, even though the penalties may differ from state to state.
As the KaZaa example demonstrates, pursuing legal action against them will only work if their host states agree with the position of the US governmant. If they don't then there will be little to no assistance.
If the RIAA looks at this, they may realize that their lobbying efforts here have not worked as well in the international arena. They may need to rethink their strategy to one which relies less on using the government as their policman and more about providing a good product to the consumers and equitable share to their artists.
-tpg
At some point, a court somewhere is going to have to determine whether or not manufacturing software that allows the trade of copyrighted materials is legal. If they decide it's illegal, God help them to enforce it. The CDBTPA (or whatever..you know what I mean) is trying really hard to push this through, but it's impossible. As someone's
Let me halt my rant and play devil's advocate for a moment...restricting speech? This is something that is hurting the anti-DRM movement more than it's helping. A neutral person may likely be swayed over to our side until they hear everything referred to as a freedom of speech restriction. Most people don't consider source code a work of speech, just as they don't consider a music file or other audio source one either. Unless it's spoken (a speech) or written word (book), John Doe isn't going to consider the violation breaking the 1st amendment.
--trb
If a pretext like this is really enough to get a war off the ground, I wonder how long it will be before a US president makes speeches about how we must use force to break up cells of renegade programmers who are writing modern network protocols which result in programs that are "in confict with the interests of America." Or, maybe we will start bombing servers "suspected of sending illegal data to Freenet."
You don't think this could happen in your lifetime? Ha!
As a fellow american I am offended that you think we should be shuting down kazaa servers. It is an established principle of the US that we go after the people who break the law, not those that make the tools used to do so, especially if the tools have functions besides the ones that are illegal. When the US decides to ban civilian gun ownership (see also hell freezes over, pigs fly...) THEN we can start to talk about making kazaa illegal.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
As the court room drama around file copying programs continues, photocopier companies relocate to foreign lands to try and protect themselves from copyright infringment. Pen companies worry about the uses to which their products may be put and all photography companies temporarily suspend trading, worried that users may photograph copy protected items. Once the floodgates have been pried open even a crack it's all on!
What if the Internet itself had its own law, independent of the jusridiction of any other state? Would this be at all possible? It could be argued that the internet, since it recognizes no geographical boundaries, and exists in its own "cyber-space" could have its own soveriegnty. Computers connected to the internet would be subject to the "law of the internet" and their owners would be responsible for those computers under "internet law." Users of the Internet could have "citizenship," pay some taxes, vote in "internet-land" elections....why not?
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
Exactly my point..... Money seems to make everything ok and legal... The more money you bribe and pay off, the more things you can do!!
Wired had an article about KaZaA's globalization strategy a few weeks ago.
Unless the world agrees to let the US's copyright laws rule the net, there's a big roadbump... Either the world must agree on some copyright laws (requires new global governance structure), or companies like KaZaa can continue merrily...
I take it you've never heard of Bush's "U.S. Does whatever it wants" plan?
All this, and more would be possible, under such a proposal.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
American Law only goes as far as their bombs, which in this world means anywhere...
Mostly because no existing government would give up their sovereignty willingly.
And consider that an internet government would be at least as crooked as any other - and who would it answer to when it ran amok with whatever powers it was given?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Reading stories like this must make the last few europeans that still generally have sympathetic feelings towards the US 'defect'.
I recon myself to be one of those. And yes I do know that not every american is to blame for such arrogant and stupid behaviour, but still, I begin to understand why the USA are so much hated in many parts of the world.
The arrogance and one sidedness (unilateralism) is getting to the point that it is simply unacceptable, also to people who always felt that the US are our allies such as myself.
The US may think they don't need anyones sympathy, that they can 'rule the world' on their own. That laws of others don't apply to the US, but that US laws are somehow more just and apply anywhere in the world (and if not, such countries must be pressured into modifying their laws under threat of trade boycotts etc). I however think this is a big mistake and gets the US into deeper trouble.
I know some 'patriotic' people will qualify this as flamebait, but remember whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not, what I write still in very mild terms (coming from a european with over-average sympathetic feelings towards the US) what more than 90% of europeans are feeling by actions like this.
Criticising other peoples for such 'infidelity' (i.e. being arrogant in the eyes of people with constructive criticism) won't cause such feelings to go away, on the contrary. I don't think it is helpful for the US to loose its last remaining allies in the world.
What is with us Americans who are so eager to start these wars that have no end and no possible way of really winning. They just go on and on and on.
War on drugs.
War on terrorism.
War on people who break copyright laws.
What next? Instead of waging "war" on everything we don't like, why not try and be alittle more creative.
Since there is no way that the RIAA or MPAA is going to stop people from making copies of their shit, why not embrace the technology?
How many people would pay for music if the recording industry charged $9 a cd if you could download it off the net or $11 if you wanted a hardcopy along with the ability to download.
However they do it, if they just made music available to people in various formats on fast servers, people would buy it. Maybe not the average slashdotter, but the average consumer would.
I am disgusted that the US governement feels it is somehow their responsibility or right to fight these battles for corporate America. Our government is nothing more than an extension of corporate America and has little to do with representing the citizens or protecting freedom.
LoRider
From the parent post:
Wait..!!! I know why, cause they get paid for every crappy law they make.. and we all know how corrupt and money hungry politicans are!!!!!!
From your post:
No, they attack P2P networks because the lobbyists (RIAA, MPAA, Lars Ulrich) have massive amounts of cash.
So, you say basically the same thing, and yet tell the guy to get off of his ass, stop whining and change the system, or move to a communist or a formerly communist country. IOW, you seem to be willing to accept the status quo of lobbyists buying laws since "that's capitalism - like it, change it or leave it."
Lesse, we have big media companies lobbying for and getting passed laws that are actually bad for consumers. In order to change this, we need to get the word out to as many voters as possible. Since it's "one person, one vote" as is proper, we need to convince lots and lots of people to fight this. OK, let's use TV air time, magazine ads, etc. In short, we need to use the, er, big media companies...
Hmmmmmm - how effective will that be ya think? You think big media will say "Sure, shoot me with my own gun, buddy!"?? Right.
So, what we need are ways to change the law outside of the prevue of those that make - or buy - the law. Hence, Kazaa et. al. are quite happy to allow USAians to choose to step outside the sphere of influence of the US Congress and violate a law of questionalble value to consumers. Seems like Capitalism at it's finest - consumers going to the best price for the best goods, regardless of what the US Congress thinks. As is proper.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Until Bush puts KaZaa in the "Axis of Evil", then look out all you P2Pers out there!
Why doesn't Bushwhacker just ban imports to the US? (Services as well as tangibles).
Sure, keep exports going out... The world desparately needs the US to survive, but surely the US is beyond needing anything from the outside world? They barely even know one exists!
This way, no one could violate US laws outside of the US. Better yet, the US could bully the UN into passing resolutions that enforce US laws globally!
mindslip
This is complete BS. There is no such thing as "cyber-space", at least where laws are concerned. All the wires and routers, all servers and everyone using the Internet (not to be confused with one of its services called WWW) are *very* real - they're located in the real world.
When you surf the 'Net, you aren't going someplace else, you're still sitting in front of your screen. When you watch pr0n, you don't use cyber-tissues. When you host MP3s via your DSL line and are located in a country which considers this breaking *local* copyright law, the jurisdiction won't probably see why the files should reside in some higher sphere, because they're right on your hard disk which can be located quite easily unless you decide to shove it up your ass to hide it away from curious investigators. (You might be disappointed though, that the X-Ray camera won't decide not to show the drive for your cyber-space theory either.)
Seriously, get real. Most of those people whining for "Internet jurisdiction" simply want to break some law or another, mostly copyright. They should rather spend their time using their rights to tell their representatives why the current copyright laws simply won't be able to withstand the possibility to copy anything, anytime. A lot of good thoughts on how a copyright law could feed the artists while making access to digital assets simple and inexpensive already exist. They're even discussed here on a regular basis, and if this isn't enough, Google is your friend (tm).
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
Quit redefining "poor"... use the system header file instead. Thanks.
/* __POOR_H__ */
#ifndef __POOR_H__
#define __POOR_H__ 1
#define WEEKS_PER_YEAR 52
#define WORK_HOURS_PER_WEEK 40
#define MINIMUM_WAGE 5.15
#define IS_POOR(yearly_income) \
((yearly_income (MINIMUM_WAGE * \
WORK_HOURS_PER_WEEK * WEEKS_PER_YEAR) ? 1 : 0)
#endif
You want to define certain people as poor? You have three manifest constants to work with. All three of them can only be changed with the approval of standards committees. Knock yourself out.
Notice: Cranking up any of these values to crank up income for the bottom rung is fine... but nothing you do will make them definitionally "poor"... the only thing that can do that is them not working full time.
FWIW: Most wealthy Libertarians, just like most wealthy Democrats or wealthy Republicans, etc., are all for bribing less well-off people to not steal their stuff. The various political parties just disagree as to what form the bribes should take.
-- Terry